Euro Parking Services PCN

JN33

Sorry, me and the wife are beginning to become a regular offenders!

I have received a new PCN for:

"Parked on: Double yellow lines / Crosshatched bay / restricted area of the car park"

The double yellow lines are actually on the opposite side of the road, I assume this is still "enforaceable".

I have attached a picture of the PCN as you can see was for 2m 10s, I never left the vehicle nor did I deliberately stop. I actually dropped a bottle of water onto the floor (lid sealed) if I remember correctly, which then resulted in me scuffling about to get it.

Surely there is some grace period? 2 minutes?!

I will reply with the usual template, I doubt it's worth adding any reasoning? I assume they'll try and stand by their decision as being "issued correctly".

Re PCN number: XXXXXXXXX

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner.

I will add the following to the end:
Additionally, such a brief stop may have included a legitimate reason to pause and ensure safe driving conditions. This should not be construed as "parking" in the conventional sense. The alleged time limit does not allow time to locate and read the terms, and to then decide whether to accept the terms or leave.

Not included in my appeal but from my understanding, the following would not be parking:

• Stopping briefly to check signage

• Waiting momentarily to assess whether to stay

• Moving something inside the vehicle (e.g. removing a bottle from the floor for safety)

• Engine left running, no intent to stay (which the engine was running at all times)

PCN:

Coupon-mad

JN33 said:

I have received a new PCN for:

"Parked on: Double yellow lines / Crosshatched bay / restricted area of the car park"

The double yellow lines are actually on the opposite side of the road, I assume this is still "enforaceable".

I have attached a picture of the PCN as you can see was for 2m 10s, I never left the vehicle nor did I deliberately stop. I actually dropped a bottle of water onto the floor (lid sealed) if I remember correctly, which then resulted in me scuffling about to get it.

Surely there is some grace period? 2 minutes?!

I will reply with the usual template, I doubt it's worth adding any reasoning? I assume they'll try and stand by their decision as being "issued correctly".

Re PCN number: XXXXXXXXX

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner.

I will add the following to the end:
Additionally, such a brief stop may have included a legitimate reason to pause and ensure safe driving conditions. This should not be construed as "parking" in the conventional sense. The alleged time limit does not allow time to locate and read the terms, and to then decide whether to accept the terms or leave.

Not included in my appeal but from my understanding, the following would not be parking:

• Stopping briefly to check signage

• Waiting momentarily to assess whether to stay

• Moving something inside the vehicle (e.g. removing a bottle from the floor for safety)

• Engine left running, no intent to stay (which the engine was running at all times)

PCN:

Joke PCN. Utter scam. Covert CCTV, no signs and it's not a double reds no stopping zone!

There is meant to be a min 5 minute consideration period in the nonsense 'Joint Code 'but they worded the clause and Annex about consideration periods to effectively say that they could call ANYWHERE a 'restricted area' and then offer zero consideration period - immediate ticketing!

There was also an error in the 2022 DLUHC code about this (against all common sense for contract law, there was a 'Zero' consideration period wrongly in the table in that Annex too). 

The MHCLG must remove that mistake sharpish because this covert surveillance and immediate ticketing is flooding in. I'd say we are seeing this far more commonly since the Joint Code provided this loophole enabling their members to slap up CCTV cameras literally everywhere and call all entry roads and some car parks 'a restricted area'.

Try an appeal - and IAS appeal in this case - and say that this isn't a restricted area. It us denied that the car was "Parked on: Double yellow lines / Crosshatched bay / restricted area of the car park."  There are no lines or signs and in any case, the minimum consideration period to read a sign applies and that's not 2 minutes!

That PCN doesn't have all the wording required from para 9 of schedule 4 of the POFA.

Do not admit to driving. Do not write about it in the first person, instead say what the driver did and that the driver saw no signs & lines so thus isn't a restricted area etc.

What was the date of event? You covered it!

JN33

Coupon-mad said:

JN33 said:

I have received a new PCN for:

"Parked on: Double yellow lines / Crosshatched bay / restricted area of the car park"

The double yellow lines are actually on the opposite side of the road, I assume this is still "enforaceable".

I have attached a picture of the PCN as you can see was for 2m 10s, I never left the vehicle nor did I deliberately stop. I actually dropped a bottle of water onto the floor (lid sealed) if I remember correctly, which then resulted in me scuffling about to get it.

Surely there is some grace period? 2 minutes?!

I will reply with the usual template, I doubt it's worth adding any reasoning? I assume they'll try and stand by their decision as being "issued correctly".

Re PCN number: XXXXXXXXX

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner.

I will add the following to the end:
Additionally, such a brief stop may have included a legitimate reason to pause and ensure safe driving conditions. This should not be construed as "parking" in the conventional sense. The alleged time limit does not allow time to locate and read the terms, and to then decide whether to accept the terms or leave.

Not included in my appeal but from my understanding, the following would not be parking:

• Stopping briefly to check signage

• Waiting momentarily to assess whether to stay

• Moving something inside the vehicle (e.g. removing a bottle from the floor for safety)

• Engine left running, no intent to stay (which the engine was running at all times)

PCN:

Joke PCN. Utter scam. Covert CCTV, no signs and it's not a double reds no stopping zone!

There is meant to be a min 5 minute consideration period in the nonsense 'Joint Code 'but they worded the clause and Annex about consideration periods to effectively say that they could call ANYWHERE a 'restricted area' and then offer zero consideration period - immediate ticketing!

There was also an error in the 2022 DLUHC code about this (against all common sense for contract law, there was a 'Zero' consideration period wrongly in the table in that Annex too). 

The MHCLG must remove that mistake sharpish because this covert surveillance and immediate ticketing is flooding in. I'd say we are seeing this far more commonly since the Joint Code provided this loophole enabling their members to slap up CCTV cameras literally everywhere and call all entry roads and some car parks 'a restricted area'.

Try an appeal - and IAS appeal in this case - and say that this isn't a restricted area. It us denied that the car was "Parked on: Double yellow lines / Crosshatched bay / restricted area of the car park."  There are no lines or signs and in any case, the minimum consideration period to read a sign applies and that's not 2 minutes!

That PCN doesn't have all the wording required from para 9 of schedule 4 of the POFA.

Do not admit to driving. Do not write about it in the first person, instead say what the driver did and that the driver saw no signs & lines so thus isn't a restricted area etc.

What was the date of event? You covered it!

Thanks Coupon for your speedy reply and as always very informative reply!

I didn’t realise I covered the date, it was the 09/04/2025. 

Thank you for the advice I will never admit to driving - but will ensure it’s not written in first person either. 

Sick of the !!!!!! PCN’s but thanks to this forum I’ll never pay without going to court first. 

JN33

@Coupon-mad are you advising to detour from the one-size fits all newbies template above with the additional paragraph on the bottom?

If so, does something like this work?

Re PCN number: XXXXXXXXX

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner as well as appealing to the IAS.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn.

It is denied that the vehicle was "Parked on: Double yellow lines / Crosshatched bay / restricted area of the car park," as alleged. The location in question does not have any double red lines to indicate a no stopping zone, nor is there any visible road markings, double yellow lines, crosshatched areas or any other indications of a restricted area. Likewise, there were no signs in the immediate view to the driver in order to communicate any such restriction.

The driver of the vehicle did not observe any markings or signage that would suggest the area was subject to any parking prohibitions. In the absence of clear, visible signage and ground markings, there can be no reasonable assumption that this was a restricted area.

However should signage exist elsewhere, the time recorded is only 2 minutes which is wholly insufficient to constitute a meaningful grace or consideration period. This does NOT allow any driver a reasonable opportunity to locate and read any posted terms, this is a deliberate money making scam with covert CCTV. What happened to consideration periods?

On these grounds, the charge must be cancelled immediately.  Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

Coupon-mad

I'd remove this (not needed):

Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

You didn't need to use the template appeal at all and certainly don't look to use one at IAS stage!

JN33

Coupon-mad said:

I'd remove this (not needed):

Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

You didn't need to use the template appeal at all and certainly don't look to use one at IAS stage!

Thank you, appeal sent!

JN33

That was the quickest appeal reply ever!

We acknowledge receipt of your appeal (representations) received on 24/04/2025 in relation to the
above Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

We have reviewed your appeal and in doing so, we took into account the representations that you
made in support of your appeal as well as evidence which was submitted. We reached the decision that
in this instance, the Parking Charge was issued correctly for the following reason(s).

The terms and conditions of use of the car park are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed
around the car park, these include vehicles are not permitted to park on restricted areas of the car park
such as double yellow/red lines, crosshatched bays, no parking zones. According to our records your
vehicle was incorrectly parked, we have no option but to reject this appeal.

Please note that the terms and conditions of parking are displayed at multiple locations around the site.
It is the responsibility of all motorists to read and comply with the information provided. Our car parks
are audited by the International Parking Community (IPC) to ensure compliance with signage
standards, including requirements for signs to be clearly visible, legible, and prominently displayed.
The signs convey an offer in contract and acceptance occurs when the motorist parks there. A valid
contract does therefore exist.We are satisfied that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly and that sufficient attention was

brought to the driver with regards to the terms and conditions enforced. In light of the aforementioned,
your appeal (representations) is rejected. We will not accept any further appeals.

IAS appeal being sent this morning, if that fails I will ignore all letters that arrive over the coming year and wait for a LBC.

JN33

Operator's Prima Facie Case

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 09/05/2025 15:44:53.

The operator reported that...

The appellant was the driver.
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
The Notice to Keeper (Non-ANPR) was sent on 15/04/2025.
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 15/04/2025.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 15/04/2025.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...

The Appellant has been observed to park their vehicle on the site. The site signage terms and conditions state Restricted Zone. Strictly no parking, stopping or waiting at any time. The photographic evidence shows the Appellant's vehicle parked in the restricted zone. Therefore there has been a contravention.

-------

Do I want to respond, or shall I just refer this straight to arbitration? Damned if you do, damned if you don't - I already know it's going to be rejected.

Coupon-mad

You'll lose anyway because IPC firms are pretending that restricted areas are the same as no stopping zones. Utter joke.

JN33

Coupon-mad said:

You'll lose anyway because IPC firms are pretending that restricted areas are the same as no stopping zones. Utter joke.

Agreed, that's why the end of the reply I stated "I already know it's going to be rejected". I'll refer straight to Arbitration

JN33

Appeal: Dismissed

"The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the Operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them. 

The Appellant accepts that he was the keeper of this vehicle but denies that at the time of the incident he was the driver. In the case of ELLIOTT v LOAKE in 1982 the principle was established that in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be the driver of that vehicle at the time of an incident such as arises in this Appeal. The burden of proof is then on the keeper of the vehicle to prove on the balance of probabilities that he/she was not the driver at the time of the incident. In this case such evidence has not been provided by the Appellant to establish that he was not the driver and therefore the Operator is entitled to assume as the registered keeper, he was also the driver. 

Images, including a site map have been provided to me by the Operator which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site. 

The signage at this site makes it clear that the site is private land and that vehicles are not permitted to park, stop or wait at any time and that a failure to comply with that term and condition will result in the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice. In the photographs provided to me I can see that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped in the restricted area. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they conform with the terms and conditions of the Operator's signage displayed at this site. Mitigating/extenuating circumstances, including being stopped for a short period cannot be taken into account. The signage is clear that no parking, stopping or waiting is permitted and it is the driver's responsibility to read the signage. An absence of road markings is not a valid defence. The rules concerning road markings are not the same on private land as on public roads. As such, on the basis of the evidence provided I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in breach of the displayed terms and conditions and that the PCN was correctly issued on this occasion. 

I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed." 

Wait for my waste of paper letters and then we'll see if a LBC arrives, signage is clear if you're on the opposite side of the road perhaps lol